Malvern Save The Children Christmas Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Yes Why Do The West Treat Russia As The Bogeyman?
42 Answers
One may not always agree with Peter Hitchens, but is he speaking some sense here?
/// It never occurs to them that Russia has good historical reasons to fear its neighbours. It never crosses their mind that the borders drawn by the victorious West in 1992, like those drawn at Versailles in 1919, are an unsustainable, unjust mistake. ///
/// They never ask why Britain (or the USA) should be hostile to Russia, or what the quarrel between us actually is. What is it to us whose flag flies over Sevastopol? Yet it matters greatly to those who live there. ///
/// They cast every Russian action as evil, and every Ukrainian action as saintly. The world is not like that. ///
/// It never occurs to them that Russia has good historical reasons to fear its neighbours. It never crosses their mind that the borders drawn by the victorious West in 1992, like those drawn at Versailles in 1919, are an unsustainable, unjust mistake. ///
/// They never ask why Britain (or the USA) should be hostile to Russia, or what the quarrel between us actually is. What is it to us whose flag flies over Sevastopol? Yet it matters greatly to those who live there. ///
/// They cast every Russian action as evil, and every Ukrainian action as saintly. The world is not like that. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"If 60 pic are ethnic Russian then it does tend to point to the majority wanting to be allied to Russia. Maybe the voting is not what we expect in the West but the result may still be the wishes of the majority. "
I wonder if you actually read my previous post. If you lived as an English person in Scotland and saw the Scottish Parliament building held at gunpoint while a new government of radical Scottish Nationalists was voted into government with a gangster from the East End of Glasgow chosen as Prime Minister. If that new "government" then decided to bring forward the Scottish referendum to next week, closed down all BBC broadcasts from south of the border and replaced them with non-stop footage of Cameron and his Tory toffs thumbing it to the Scottish people . If gangs of yobs in military fatigues roamed the streets attacking anyone who spoke with an English accent.
Moreover, you then discover that the referendum is not going to include an option to vote for the status quo, but gives one option which is for independence and another which is for greater autonomy for Scotland. You would probably not call that particularly democratic. And you might think, when the result was annouced as a 97% result in favour of independence, that there was something fishy going on.
I wonder if you actually read my previous post. If you lived as an English person in Scotland and saw the Scottish Parliament building held at gunpoint while a new government of radical Scottish Nationalists was voted into government with a gangster from the East End of Glasgow chosen as Prime Minister. If that new "government" then decided to bring forward the Scottish referendum to next week, closed down all BBC broadcasts from south of the border and replaced them with non-stop footage of Cameron and his Tory toffs thumbing it to the Scottish people . If gangs of yobs in military fatigues roamed the streets attacking anyone who spoke with an English accent.
Moreover, you then discover that the referendum is not going to include an option to vote for the status quo, but gives one option which is for independence and another which is for greater autonomy for Scotland. You would probably not call that particularly democratic. And you might think, when the result was annouced as a 97% result in favour of independence, that there was something fishy going on.
"It's not an objective view you're giving ichkeria. Why should we believe it any more than the BBCs or Putins? "
Everything I have said is easily verifiable by checking news reports. Including the BBC.
What is Putin's justification for annexing Crimea? Protection of Russians from hordes of invading fascist Ukrainians. As I said before if you can find, even on the pro-Putin Russian media, a single example of any such threat, then you'll be doing well.
On Russian TV this afternoon TV presenter Dmitri Kiselev (he's the guy who said Russia could turn the US to nuclear ash recently) was ranting that the USA was not a valid state as its independence from Brtitain was not gained legally.
Meanwhile Russian forces on the Ukrainian border are assessed by NATO as having the capability of reaching and "liberating" Transnistria (Eastern Moldova's Soviet-style enclave) via Eastern and Southern Ukraine in a matter of hours and the Ukraine government is seriously contemplating imminent invasion.
You people need to wake up.
Everything I have said is easily verifiable by checking news reports. Including the BBC.
What is Putin's justification for annexing Crimea? Protection of Russians from hordes of invading fascist Ukrainians. As I said before if you can find, even on the pro-Putin Russian media, a single example of any such threat, then you'll be doing well.
On Russian TV this afternoon TV presenter Dmitri Kiselev (he's the guy who said Russia could turn the US to nuclear ash recently) was ranting that the USA was not a valid state as its independence from Brtitain was not gained legally.
Meanwhile Russian forces on the Ukrainian border are assessed by NATO as having the capability of reaching and "liberating" Transnistria (Eastern Moldova's Soviet-style enclave) via Eastern and Southern Ukraine in a matter of hours and the Ukraine government is seriously contemplating imminent invasion.
You people need to wake up.
// You people need to wake up. //
It's difficult to know what we're supposed to do. Putin's clearly a dangerous old school soviet, who'd probably like to roll back any changes post 1985 and restore the USSR to it's former 'glory'.
He seemed relatively content with the status quo as long as he had a stooge in charge of the Ukraine, but when the stooge was kicked out, his hand was forced.
Other than sanctions, I don't know what can be done without starting ww3.
It's difficult to know what we're supposed to do. Putin's clearly a dangerous old school soviet, who'd probably like to roll back any changes post 1985 and restore the USSR to it's former 'glory'.
He seemed relatively content with the status quo as long as he had a stooge in charge of the Ukraine, but when the stooge was kicked out, his hand was forced.
Other than sanctions, I don't know what can be done without starting ww3.
Sorry it was probably a bit rude of me :-) I don't know what will be the response to Putin but my point is that we at least should be aware of the nature of the beast. It's my belief that only a firm response will act as a deterrent. Like most bullies Putin seems to pounce on signs of weakness. It doesn't need to lead to WW3.
Going back to the original article that prompted AOG's question, it is plain that the author has no grasp of the situation, nor its implications
Going back to the original article that prompted AOG's question, it is plain that the author has no grasp of the situation, nor its implications
> : “Many Crimeans loyal to Kiev boycotted the referendum, and the EU and US condemned it as illegal.”
Fact: More than 80% voted and the vote was 96% against Washington. So who precisely boycotted the vote, and how could it have made any difference?
Let’s assume that the 20% of voters who did not turn out would all have voted against rejoining Russia. That 20% together with the 4% who did vote not to rejoin Russia could give a vote of 24% against and 76% for. So, despite the BBC’s utterly dishonest attempt to suggest that it wasn’t a majority vote, it would have made no difference whatsoever if the vote turnout had been 100% instead of 80%.
Fact: More than 80% voted and the vote was 96% against Washington. So who precisely boycotted the vote, and how could it have made any difference?
Let’s assume that the 20% of voters who did not turn out would all have voted against rejoining Russia. That 20% together with the 4% who did vote not to rejoin Russia could give a vote of 24% against and 76% for. So, despite the BBC’s utterly dishonest attempt to suggest that it wasn’t a majority vote, it would have made no difference whatsoever if the vote turnout had been 100% instead of 80%.
"Fact: More than 80% voted and the vote was 96% against Washington. So who precisely boycotted the vote, and how could it have made any difference?
Let’s assume that the 20% of voters who did not turn out would all have voted against rejoining Russia. That 20% together with the 4% who did vote not to rejoin Russia could give a vote of 24% against and 76% for. So, despite the BBC’s utterly dishonest attempt to suggest that it wasn’t a majority vote, it would have made no difference whatsoever if the vote turnout had been 100% instead of 80%. "
I'd be interested in where you got your voting figures of 80% from Dr Filth.
There don't appear to be any figures other than the "97%" which one assumes means 97& of those who voted. Which means nothing really.
Roughly 60% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, many of whom were not supportive of a return to the Russian Federation traditionally. Up until fairly recently opinion polls in Crimea showed a majority favouring remaining part of Ukraine.
The 40% non-Russian (Ukrainian and Tatar) almost all boycotted the vote. Hardly surprisingly, as who wants to vote in a referendum which doesn't give you the option to vote for what you want?
Let’s assume that the 20% of voters who did not turn out would all have voted against rejoining Russia. That 20% together with the 4% who did vote not to rejoin Russia could give a vote of 24% against and 76% for. So, despite the BBC’s utterly dishonest attempt to suggest that it wasn’t a majority vote, it would have made no difference whatsoever if the vote turnout had been 100% instead of 80%. "
I'd be interested in where you got your voting figures of 80% from Dr Filth.
There don't appear to be any figures other than the "97%" which one assumes means 97& of those who voted. Which means nothing really.
Roughly 60% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, many of whom were not supportive of a return to the Russian Federation traditionally. Up until fairly recently opinion polls in Crimea showed a majority favouring remaining part of Ukraine.
The 40% non-Russian (Ukrainian and Tatar) almost all boycotted the vote. Hardly surprisingly, as who wants to vote in a referendum which doesn't give you the option to vote for what you want?
ichkeria >
I'd be interested in where you got your voting figures of 80% from Dr Filth. <
from > Institute for Political Economy <
here is a link
http://
I'd be interested in where you got your voting figures of 80% from Dr Filth. <
from > Institute for Political Economy <
here is a link
http://
this site gives a higher turn out
http://
http://
Er, right.
The first is a looney from the USA (as Putin himself says, don't believe all you read in the Western media :-)
The second is actually ITV quoting guess who: RIA Novosti, Russian State media.
The trouble with this is that an attempt to find out what actually happened is impossible because there were no independent observers, and almost certainly no proper electoral register. Journalists interviewed people voting on Russian visitor passports (!) In fact don't stop at 80%, I have seen a chart which seems to show that well over 120% of the entire population of Sevastopol voted (!)
The first is a looney from the USA (as Putin himself says, don't believe all you read in the Western media :-)
The second is actually ITV quoting guess who: RIA Novosti, Russian State media.
The trouble with this is that an attempt to find out what actually happened is impossible because there were no independent observers, and almost certainly no proper electoral register. Journalists interviewed people voting on Russian visitor passports (!) In fact don't stop at 80%, I have seen a chart which seems to show that well over 120% of the entire population of Sevastopol voted (!)
A little gem from Mr Roberts (actually I don't know if he is US looney or one of our own - it makes little difference):
"It is extraordinary that the BBC is so biased and careless in its reporting that the BBC did not notice that the BBC itself reported that 58% of the citizens of Crimea are Russian; yet more than 80% of the population voted and 96% voted to return to Russia where Crimea existed until Khrushchev put Crimea, without a vote, into Ukraine. Clearly, not merely the Russian population voted. "
Yes, provided you believe that 80% voted (!) He seems to have accepted this "fact" - as you have - without question. We should "question more" as Russia Today always exhorts its viewers lol
"It is extraordinary that the BBC is so biased and careless in its reporting that the BBC did not notice that the BBC itself reported that 58% of the citizens of Crimea are Russian; yet more than 80% of the population voted and 96% voted to return to Russia where Crimea existed until Khrushchev put Crimea, without a vote, into Ukraine. Clearly, not merely the Russian population voted. "
Yes, provided you believe that 80% voted (!) He seems to have accepted this "fact" - as you have - without question. We should "question more" as Russia Today always exhorts its viewers lol
Well, put it this way:
Here is a chap ranting about one news organisation (happens to be the BBC but it actually could be anyone for the purposes of blowing a hole in his logic) on the basis of (presumably) the same unverified source quoted by ITV in their other article.
So, his argument goes: BBC is evil because what they say doesn't tally with what another news organisation has said. But of course he doesn't care to shine a light on the authenticity or otherwise of RIA Novosti because it doesn't suit his agenda, or the bee in his bonnet, or whatever.
People may think I am biased, and so I am, but at least I have some facts to back me up:
Here's an example of Russian State media's great talent for crap propaganda:
http://
There are plenty of other sources for that, but I can't be bothered trying to find them.
Here is a chap ranting about one news organisation (happens to be the BBC but it actually could be anyone for the purposes of blowing a hole in his logic) on the basis of (presumably) the same unverified source quoted by ITV in their other article.
So, his argument goes: BBC is evil because what they say doesn't tally with what another news organisation has said. But of course he doesn't care to shine a light on the authenticity or otherwise of RIA Novosti because it doesn't suit his agenda, or the bee in his bonnet, or whatever.
People may think I am biased, and so I am, but at least I have some facts to back me up:
Here's an example of Russian State media's great talent for crap propaganda:
http://
There are plenty of other sources for that, but I can't be bothered trying to find them.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics16 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.